2009-04-26

teh stupid, it does burn (updated)

Should Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and their team have been held criminally or civilly liable for dereliction of duty 3,000 people died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, given that they knowingly allowed Osama bin Laden to flee Sudan for sanctuary in Afghanistan? *

"The pressure from the anti-American left rattled him and he opened Pandora's box," said Gingrich.

...

Indeed, it probably never occurred to Gingrich to consider how ridiculous these kinds of attacks are. If you support torture, you're pro-America; if you support the rule of law, you're anti-America. If you believe war crimes should be ignored, you're pro-America; if you believe in accountability, you're anti-America.

and because some on the right will not accept anything that wasn't championed by ronald reagan:

The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called "universal jurisdiction." Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution.

2009-04-19

to reiterate

Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

Art. 148. No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article

This morning on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos", Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said the White House did not support prosecuting -- not only CIA officers who tortured, believing in "good faith" what they were doing was legal -- but would also not support the prosecution of "those who devised the [interrogations/torture] policy."

In an interview in London in April 2008, I remind F.B.I. director Robert Mueller of the attacks planned against targets on American soil since 9/11 that his agents have disrupted: for example, a plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and another to wreak mayhem at army recruiting centers and synagogues in and around Torrance, California. These and other homegrown conspiracies were foiled by regular police work. The F.B.I. learned of the Fort Dix plot from a Circuit City store where a technician raised the alarm when asked to copy firearms-training videos, while the Torrance cell was rounded up when cops probed the backgrounds of two of its members after they allegedly robbed a local gas station.

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?

“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

i did not know he wouldn't be any better than UU., i only thought that he might not be, and would be pleasantly suprised if i was proven wrongthere is the consolation that i'm not dissapointed and was not fooled againthere is some hope, he has just under four years to make amends

The bottom line is this: Current procedures under the CSRT are such that a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence.

I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary. I do not want to hear that this is a new world and we face a new kind of enemy. I know that. . . . But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence...

But what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes. By giving suspects a chance--even one chance--to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit...

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

and

When I am president we won’t work in secret to avoid honoring our laws and Constitution

The Lemmon Aid Act of 2009 (H.R. 714), introduced by Rep. Bean (D-IL), and co-sponsored by 37 other members, is expected to be introduced and voted on in the House today. Early expectations are that it will narrowly pass and move to a contentious vote in the Senate later this week. The Bill, the Lentigo Educational Medical MobilizatiON Act, encourages preventative measures and increased medical education, tries to rectify the shortcomings of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 by removing the donut hold in Part D, allowing the government to bargain for lower drugs prices in conjunction with the Department of Veterans Affairs, and not allowing unelected accountants making life and death medical decisions. It will force portability for workers to take their existing coverage from one employer, thru unemployment, to a future job, if that plan is more expensive or offers less coverage. One of the biggest provisions of the bill is the ban of blocking coverage of preexisting conditions. The insurers must cover all people who apply, pay their premiums, and need medical assistance...